Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Backside of the Internet
amesj523 wrote on 04-02-2003 11:29 AM:
on your thoughts per deja vu - this is interesting in that i've not met anyone that really wanted to or presented this angle of deja vu. I've not thought about it much on that in the sense we couldn't change our path etc, like a groundhog day type of deal. would we be living our lives over and over again on different 'planes' of existence, where sometimes (as you state possible glimpses from another expierence or time) it bleeds through and causes deja vu (i think we are sort of on the same page with that concept).
Really, I think this is more of a modification on some very old ideas. The Matrix, which, Im not sure if you were aware or not, is almost a direct modern equivalent to Plato's "The Republic" specifically the Analogy of the Cave. The "deja vu" scene in that movie got me thinking about some of the other theories on physical realities and it just kind of hit me one day, particularly after re-reading up on the superstring theories.
I think deja vu is more like a bleeding over from different times and expierences of 'us' - but I don't think it's repetative as a whole. Let me further try to explain:
This is very much the same as my belief.
I'll give you an example: Two of my best friends not that long ago were in a situation where it involved a girl, and she went from friend a to friend b - well as it turned out i was the integral part of keeping them friends, isntead of the situation exploding, it more or less just kinda cooled down. They still remain friends. Now from a deja vu/past life deal - did they keep having this same type of issue until the cycle was broken? And if so, in future instances of 'them' would they not interact with each other anymore since this situation/lesson is learned? I don't feel that (my opinion) that situations will be like reruns in that the exact same thing happens (i could be wrong, afterall i'm not god ) maybe situations in a kharma sense is what i'm more after.... (We can discuss that further)
Perhaps, if they are not equally repetetive, then they are somewhat different, some minor detail where in one timeline the atom goes this way and in another it goes that way, thus the changing of the the physical realms very nature. If in one world you have green eyes, in another you may have blue, or the differences could indeed be far more severe. It is possible that some of us only exist in a minor, small fraction of the total universes because atoms that needed to be moved in a certain way were not. More on this later.
Interesting on god being the first atom that moved through space fusing with itself to and from beginning/end of time - it's interesting how (at least my feeble mind) interprets the creation/change in new universes - almost like dimensions (similiar but different) -
God as the first atom - and we are made in its image:
That was more of a metaphorical position. Many scientists are conflicted with their traditional beliefs in God and the scientific method to which they have dedicated their lives. In a sense, the Creator is God.
Alec - i have been studying divine theulergy (i am pretty sure i spelled that wrong for you, there's some words that i'm forever stuck on spelling wrong) - anyway one of the lessons is 'as above so below' and how it correlates to our relationship to the creator. On how above and below us are reflections of what we are, but the level of perception we are in doesn't allow us to see the full picture. One reason that it correlates to how man and the cosmos is more in common in relation than not. (and the atom actually kinda fills in some gaps for me) - also interesting how atom sounds like adam (just connecting things, even if they are wrong, don't be scared inside of my head ) - since in my teachings they talk of an adam (i forget the 'lastname' they assign to him) as being the heavenly man -
"One reason that it correlates to how man and the cosmos is more in common in relation than not." This particlar sentences strikes much intrigue Ames, because you can see this very debate in other forums besides the philosophical. It has usurped its head into the "man made" vs "natural" ideologies. Technically, everything "man made" is natural. We are unable to create new matter, we may only manipulate matter and change its form. We do it in our bodies from Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide, we do it with advanced composites, steel. Yet the debate rages and we are not considered "culturally" to be part of the "natural world". How can we be separate from the natural world if we are indeed all and one the same. "The Correspondence Point" reflects this. That's the idea that all things exist in one point in one dimension in one place. One wonders how this can be, but when time is taken into consideration (which may be infinite, or infitinately rotating), then all things can exist in one point in reality, just on different timelines. (Very wierd stuff that)
true omnipotence and omniscience from the creator being 1 atom and we are all made up of it, truley brings another angle and though into my studies as well - that i've not htought about, and makes actually some christian dogma more sensible to me on gnostic levels of such power. I had always fallen into the trap in looking for the big picture of god, instead of the building block of life - the atom - and this theory certainly reminds me of discussing with friends what if we are just an atom in something else -
The circular theory of time is also interesting - for i've not thought of time in a circle - i've used more of... the double helix/dna model of time (which kinda explains deja vu, in that when the helix's cross maybe that's how deja vu comes through) - and the 'endgame' of the universe imploding with the 'timeline' moving in a circle is very much as possible as anything i've read (including the holographic universe) - which ties in the whole theory you outlined pretty well....
Well, science now knows for certain that time is not linear (as has been proven over and over again through even minute variations in which the rate of time flows) and it has to do with speed. If, then, it is not linear and follows no straight path, then it is conceivable that it will finish where it started, if not in a circle, then some meandering shape that is closed off with no beginning and no end. It's very peculiar for me to think of time in such a way, I look at my watch and I see the second hand go by and I realize that time is passing. I cannot imagine it moving faster or slower (though I may perceive it to be so with varying situations-slow work day-time flies when your having fun-time seemed to stop before I had the accident, etc. I think is just perception of time, not time actually changing). If, time travels in reverse at times as it meanders along its course, could then this be why we suffer from deja vu? Suddenly feeling as if we had done this very thing (as time reversed itself we might not quite be aware of its reversal, only the forward progress of time). Wierd stuff man.
I studied with a hindu for a while, and i remember she told me: Sometimes there are those people who learn very slowly and will take many lifetimes to understand their challenges.
I know i'm a bit scattered, but i had a little bit to try to do this in at work... i can elaborate if needed...